CyberKnife MLC-based treatment planning for abdominal and pelvic SBRT: Analysis of multiple dosimetric parameters, overall scoring index and clinical scoring.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the plan quality of CyberKnife MLC-based treatment planning in comparison to the Iris collimator for abdominal and pelvic SBRT. Multiple dosimetric parameters were considered together with a global scoring index validated by clinical scoring.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Iris and MLC plans were created for 28 liver, 15 pancreas and 13 prostate cases including a wide range of PTV sizes (24-643 cm3 ). Plans were compared in terms of coverage, conformity (nCI), dose gradient (R50%), homogeneity (HI), OAR doses, PTV gEUD, MU, treatment time both estimated by TPS (tTPS ) and measured. A global plan quality score index was calculated for IRIS and MLC solutions and validated by a clinical score given independently by two observers.

RESULTS: Compared to Iris, MLC achieved equivalent coverage and conformity without compromising OAR sparing and improving R50% (p < 0.001). MLC gEUD was slightly lower than Iris (p < 0.05) for abdominal cases. MLC reduced significantly MU (-15%) and tTPS (-22%). Time reduction was partially lost when measured. The global score index was significantly higher for MLC solutions which were selected in 73% and 64% of cases respectively by the first and second observer.

CONCLUSION: Iris and MLC comparison was not straightforward when based on multiple dosimetric parameters. The use of a mathematical overall score index integrated with a clinical scoring was essential to confirm MLC plans advantages over Iris solutions.